ORDER: Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Since common question of law and fact is involved in this batch of writ petitions, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts mentioned in W.P.(S)No.1472/2021 are taken, as that writ petition is the lead case and interim order has been granted in that petition. 3. It is the case of the petitioners, as pleaded in W.P.(S)No.1472/2021, that they were appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I vide order dated 10-7-1998 and later-on their services were absorbed by the Department of School Education vide order dated 28-9-2018 in compliance of the policy decision taken by the State Government dated 30-6-2018. It is the further case of the petitioners that they have completed more than five years on the post of Lecturer (Local Body), yet the Department of School Education is denying promotion on the post of Principal on the ground that they have not completed five years of service in the feeder cadre post of Lecturer (LB) by not counting their service rendered prior to their absorption and leaving them aside from the process of promotion. It is also the case of the petitioners that they have been absorbed on 28-9-2018 pursuant to the policy decision dated 30-6-2018 and counting their earlier period of service on the post of Shiksha Karmi rendered in the office of the Zila Panchayat, etc., they are entitled to be promoted on the post of Principal and as such appropriate direction be given to the respondent authorities for consideration of their case for the promotional post of Principal and grant promotion on the post of Principal against the posts meant for promotion through Lecturer (LB) quota as per the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2019’) and further, the impugned promotion process initiated by respondent No.1 by calling the names of Lecturers, E-cadre exclusively and excluding the names of Lecturers E (LB) may be set aside. 4. 4. Return has been filed by the State/respondents stating inter alia that the petitioners were earlier working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-I in various Zila Panchayats when they were absorbed in the School Education Department as per the policy decision taken by the State Government on 30-6-2018 and accordingly, they have been absorbed with effect from 28/29-9-2018 and their post has been renamed as Lecturer E(LB) cadre, and their services are now governed by the Rules of 2019. As per Rule 14 of the Rules of 2019 i.e. appointment by way of promotion, as provided in Schedule-IV, S.No.9, promotion to the post of Principal requires 5 years teaching experience on the post of Lecturer or Head Master in Middle School and the candidate should be a Trained Post Graduate Teacher. Since the petitioners services were absorbed as per order dated 30-6-2018 with effect from 28/29-9- 2018 as Lecturer (LB) and as per clause 4 of order dated 30-6-2018, services of the petitioners on the post of Lecturer (LB) cadre will be counted from the date of absorption i.e. 1-7-2018 and thus, the petitioners have not completed the qualifying period of 5 years on the post of Lecturer (LB), therefore, they cannot be considered for the promotional post of Principal and as such, their writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 5. Rejoinder has been filed pursuant to the return filed by the State/ respondents controverting the submissions made in the return. No additional return has been filed on behalf of the State/respondents. 6. Mr. Anup Majumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(S)Nos.4341/2020 & 1472/2021, would submit that the petitioners have filed these writ petitions for consideration of their services rendered as Lecturer (Panchayat) for the purposes of promotion only, as the service period rendered as Lecturer (Panchayat) has been considered for calculating contributory pension and other benefits which is nowhere expressly said to be excluded by the Rules of 2019 and it cannot be ignored by the State. It has also been submitted by Mr. It has also been submitted by Mr. Majumdar, learned counsel, that by virtue of Rule 12(2)(c) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961, the person who is working on transfer or deputation in another department and if he is absorbed later, his seniority in the grade in which he is absorbed will normally be counted from the date of absorption in his parent department, then his regular service in the grade shall also be taken into account while fixing his seniority in the present department. Since the Panchayat Department with whom the petitioners were earlier working and the School Education Department where subsequently they have been absorbed are two wings of the State Government, therefore, the services rendered by the petitioners on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I prior to their absorption cannot be ignored for counting 5 years service on the post of Lecturer (LB). He would further submit that absorption of the petitioners was not choice, but a compulsory one rendering all the posts of Teachers of Panchayat and Urban Administration as dying cadre. He would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of A.P. State Electricity Board and others v. R. Parthasarathi and others, (1998) 9 SCC 425 , Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri and another v. V.M. Joseph, (1998) 5 SCC 305 , Renu Mullick (Smt) v. Union of India and another, (1994) 1 SCC 373 , Dwijen Chandra Sarkar and another v. Union of India and others, (1999) 2 SCC 119 , Vinod Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and another, (2001) 4 SCC 675 , Union of India and another v. V.N. Bhat, (2003) 8 SCC 714 and also upon the decisions of the M.P. High Court in the matters of Hemchandra Pandey (Dr.) and others v. State of M.P. and others, 2008 (3) M.P.L.J. 6 , Chhogalal s/o Gattuji Solanki v. State of M.P. and others, 2008 (2) M.P.L.J. 566 and State of M.P. v. K.M. Mishra and others, 2009 (3) M.P.L.J. 642 in support of his contention. 7. Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Mr. Hariom Rai and Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in other writ petitions, would adopt the submission made by Mr. Anup Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(S)Nos.4341/2020 & 1472/2021. 8. Mr. 7. Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Mr. Hariom Rai and Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in other writ petitions, would adopt the submission made by Mr. Anup Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(S)Nos.4341/2020 & 1472/2021. 8. Mr. Amrito Das, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents, would submit that the petitioners were earlier appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-I by the Zila Panchayats which has been subsequently named as Lecturer (Panchayat) and Lecturers (Panchayat) were admittedly not the holders of civil post as held by this Court in W.A.No.215/2017 (Harnarayan Yadav v. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission and another), decided on 7-1-2019, and as such, the petitioners were not appointed to civil post or to a Government Department prior to their absorption and they were absorbed pursuant to the policy decision taken by the State Government vide circular dated 30-6-2018 in which it has been categorically provided that all consequential benefits upon absorption to the School Education Department shall be computed from the date of absorption i.e, 1-7-2018, meaning thereby, the past service rendered by the petitioners in Zila Panchayat as Shiksha Karmi Grade-I/Lecturer (Panchayat) shall not be computed for any purpose which the petitioners have accepted and submitted their employee details as well as filled upon the National Subscriber Registration Form for National Pension System and they did not submit any option form for opting out from the scheme of absorption, whereby they would have continued as Lecturer (Panchayat) under the Zila Panchayat. Mr. Das, learned State counsel, would further submit that the petitioners without any demur have accepted the terms of absorption and did not assail/challenge the order dated 30-6-2018, rather accepted the said terms and thus, have attained/conferred with the status of Government service/holder of civil post with effect from 1-7-2018. He would also submit that admittedly, the petitioners did not complete five years experience on the post of feeder cadre being Lecturer for their consideration to be promoted to the post of Principal under the Rules of 2019, as Rule 15(1) of the Rules of 2019 clearly provides that eligibility for promotion shall require the person to have completed such number of years of service “on the post” from which promotion is to be made as specified in column 3 of Schedule IV. Since the petitioners have not completed 5 years service on the post of Lecturer from the date of their absorption on 1-7-2018 by order dated 28-9-2018, therefore, they have rightly not been considered for the post of Principal and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Mr. Das, learned State counsel, would contend that prescription of experience of five years for a Lecturer to be promoted to the post of Principal is teaching experience on the post of Lecturer in the feeder cadre and not anywhere else. The petitioners’ experience as Lecturer (Panchayat) cannot be treated as due experience to satisfy the rigors of Rule 15 and Schedule-IV of the Rules of 2019, since it is not on the post of Lecturer, which is the feeder cadre, where the petitioners are born only on 1-7-2018 and not before. If the contention of the petitioners that their past service on the post of Lecturer (Panchayat) has to be considered for computing the experience of five years is accepted, the necessary corollary would mean that the petitioners were entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Principal immediately on the date of absorption to the post of Lecturer under the State Government Service, irrespective of having not held a civil post for even a day prior to the date of absorption. Mr. Das, learned State counsel, would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of State of Punjab and others v. Harnam Singh and others, (1997) 3 SCC 32 , Yogendra Prasad Mandal v. State of Bihar and others, (1998) 3 SCC 137 , Union of India and others v. K. Savitri and others, (1998) 4 SCC 358 and Indu Shekhar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, (2006) 8 SCC 129 to buttress his submission. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were earlier appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I by the respective Zila Panchayats in accordance with the provisions contained in the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were earlier appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I by the respective Zila Panchayats in accordance with the provisions contained in the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997. Thereafter, with effect from 17-8-2012, the Chhattisgarh Teacher (Panchayat) Cadre (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012 have been promulgated prescribing the rules for recruitment and conditions of service of Shiksha Karmi appointed by the Zila Panchayat and Janpad Panchayat. The nomenclature of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I was also changed to that of Lecturer (Panchayat). On 30-6-2018, the State Government has formulated a scheme under a policy decision for absorption of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I (Lecturer), who had completed more than 8 years of service with effect from 1-7-2018 into the School Education Department, which states as under: - hindi pending 11. A careful perusal of clause 4 of order dated 30-6-2018 would show that for grant of all consequential benefits, computation of service shall be done from the date of absorption i.e. 1-7-2018. Later-on, on 6-7-2018, a circular was issued by the State Government directing all the concerned officers to ensure necessary compliances for streamlining the process of absorption, wherein an option form was circulated to those Lecturers (Panchayat), who did not intend to get absorbed in the School Education Department. It was also directed that those Lecturers (Panchayat), who intended absorption into the School Education Department, will have to furnish necessary employee details in the prescribed format along with submission of an application for subscribing under the National Pension Scheme. Accordingly, the services of the petitioners were absorbed in the School Education Department on the post of Lecturer E(LB) by order dated 28-9-2018 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Director, Public Instructions with effect from 1-7-2018. Thereafter, on 5-3-2019, the Rules of 2019 were promulgated by the State Government prescribing for the recruitment and promotion rules in the School Education Services under the School Education Department. Rule 4(d) of the Rules of 2019 clearly provides for applicability of the Rules of 2019 to the persons absorbed who have completed eight years of service and who have not given the option of continuing in the employer department and have been included in the service through absorption. Rule 4(d) of the Rules of 2019 states as under: - "4. Rule 4(d) of the Rules of 2019 states as under: - "4. Constitution of the service.-The service shall consist of the following persons, namely:- (a) to (c) xxx xxx xxx (d) Persons, who were recruited by the provisions of Chhattisgarh Teacher (Panchayat) Cadre (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012 under the notification of Panchyat and Rural Development Department, dated 17th August, 2012 and recruited by the provisions of Chhattisgarh Shikshak (Nagriya Nikay) Samvarg (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013 under the notification of Urban Administration and Development Department, dated 08th March, 2013 and have completed eight years of service and those have not given the option of continuing in the employer department and have been included in the service through absorption.” 12. Rule 15 of the Rules of 2019 provides for conditions regarding eligibility for promotion and sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 states as under: - "15. Conditions regarding eligibility for promotion.-(1) Subject to the provision of sub-rule (2), the committee shall consider the cases of all persons, who on the first day of January of that year have completed such number of years of service, (whether officiating or substantive), on the posts from which promotion is to be made, as specified in column (3) of Schedule-IV and are within the zone of consideration in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2).” 13. Serial No.9 of Schedule-IV enacted under Rules 14 and 15 of the Rules of 2019 relates to Lecturer/Head Master (Middle School) (Trained Post Graduate) and also prescribes minimum experience and eligibility for the post. It states as under: - Schedule-IV (See rule 14 and 15) S.No. Name of service or post from which promotion is to be made Minimum Experience period for eligibility for the post Name of service or post on which promotion is to be done Member of Departmental Promotion Committee 1 to 8 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 9. Lecturer/Head Master (Middle School) (Trained Post Graduate) 05 years Teaching experience Principal xxx xxx xxx 14. As such, Serial No.9 of Schedule-IV enacted under Rules 14 and 15 of the Rules of 2019 provides for 5 years teaching experience on the post of Lecturer to be eligible for promotion on the post of Principal. Lecturer/Head Master (Middle School) (Trained Post Graduate) 05 years Teaching experience Principal xxx xxx xxx 14. As such, Serial No.9 of Schedule-IV enacted under Rules 14 and 15 of the Rules of 2019 provides for 5 years teaching experience on the post of Lecturer to be eligible for promotion on the post of Principal. Therefore, prescription for experience of 5 years for a Lecturer to be promoted on the post of Principal is teaching experience on the post of Lecturer in the feeder cadre. 15. The sole question for consideration would be, whether the petitioners, who have been absorbed pursuant to the policy decision of the State Government dated 30-6-2018 in the Department of School Education by order dated 28/29-9-2018 with effect from 1-7-2018, are entitled to be considered for the promotional post of Principal under the Rules of 2019 by taking into account the services rendered by them with the Zila Panchayats without having completed the teaching experience of 5 years on the post of Lecturer (LB) from the date of their absorption? 16. The prescription of five years of teaching experience on the feeder cadre post i.e. Lecturer (Panchayat) as has been prescribed by Rule 15, Schedule-IV, Serial No.9 of the Rules of 2019 is to equip the employer to adjudge the ability, capability, calibre and suitability of a candidate as a Lecturer and then assess as to whether the said candidate is eligible for being considered on the promotional post of Principal. 17. Promotion, in the context of the law relating to service, means advancing or raising an employee to a higher office or rank or post than the one the employee was holding or to a higher scale of pay than the one the employee was enjoying immediately before such promotion. The higher office or rank or post or scale is generally referred to as the promotional post or scale as the case may be. The office or rank or post from which the employee is promoted is referred to as the feeder post. The promotional post is generally a higher post with a higher pay than the feeder post (see Lalit Mohan Deb v. Union of India, (1973) 3 SCC 862 ). Promotion has to be amongst persons who are borne on a regular cadre in service (see State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi, (2009) 12 SCC 49 ). The promotional post is generally a higher post with a higher pay than the feeder post (see Lalit Mohan Deb v. Union of India, (1973) 3 SCC 862 ). Promotion has to be amongst persons who are borne on a regular cadre in service (see State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi, (2009) 12 SCC 49 ). Officers belonging to a different cadre of the State service cannot claim promotion to a post required to be filled by promotion of officers belonging to another cadre (see Gopal Singh v. State Cadre Forest Officers’ Assn., (2007) 9 SCC 369 ). In the matter of Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 5 SCC 392 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have propounded the meaning of promotion in these words: "Promotion as understood under the service law jurisprudence means advancement in rank, grade or both. Promotion is always a step towards advancement to a higher position, grade or honour. Opting to come to a lower pay scale or to a lower post cannot be considered a promotion, it is rather a demotion.” 18. Similarly, an employee has no right to be promoted, he has a right to be considered for promotion. This right to be considered for promotion is one of the “matters relating to employment or appointment” within the meaning of Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India (see General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 36). Although a candidate has a fundamental right to be considered for promotion, it will be available only if he falls within the prescribed zone of consideration. Article 16(1) of the Constitution provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration has a fundamental right to be considered for promotion. If such a person is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right under Article 16(1) (see Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209 ). 19. It will be appropriate to consider the principles relating to working of the promotional process. The factors to be considered would be the zone of consideration, qualifications for promotion including qualifying examinations and qualifying period, seniority-cum-merit or seniority-cum-fitness or merit-cum-seniority, merit, past records and other factors including those which are to be considered as bars to promotion. 20. 19. It will be appropriate to consider the principles relating to working of the promotional process. The factors to be considered would be the zone of consideration, qualifications for promotion including qualifying examinations and qualifying period, seniority-cum-merit or seniority-cum-fitness or merit-cum-seniority, merit, past records and other factors including those which are to be considered as bars to promotion. 20. Since promotion is essentially an employer’s prerogative and necessarily involves a matter of choice, the rules or norms of promotion often require that an aspirant for promotion must possess certain qualifications to be eligible for being considered for promotion. A person must be eligible for promotion having regard to the qualifications prescribed for the post before he can be considered for promotion. Likewise, it is the duty of the authority concerned to consider whether the aspirant fulfills the requisite qualifications. 21. In the matter of R. Prabha Devi and others v. Government of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel and Training, Administrative Reforms and others, (1988) 2 SCC 233 their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under: - "15. The rule-making authority is competent to frame rules laying down eligibility condition for promotion to a higher post. When such an eligibility condition has been laid down by service rules, it cannot be said that a direct recruit who is senior to the promotees is not required to comply with the eligibility condition and he is entitled to be considered for promotion to the higher post merely on the basis of his seniority. The amended rule in question has specified a period of eight years' approved service in the grade of Section Officer as a condition of eligibility for being considered for promotion to Grade I post of CSS. This rule is equally applicable to both the direct recruit Section Officers as well as the promotee Section Officers. The submission that a senior Section Officer has a right to be considered for promotion to Grade I post when his juniors who have fulfilled the eligibility condition are being considered for promotion to the higher post, Grade I, is wholly unsustainable. The prescribing of an eligibility condition for entitlement for consideration for promotion is within the competence of the rule-making authority. This eligibility condition has to be fulfilled by the Section Officers including senior direct recruits in order to be eligible for being considered for promotion. The prescribing of an eligibility condition for entitlement for consideration for promotion is within the competence of the rule-making authority. This eligibility condition has to be fulfilled by the Section Officers including senior direct recruits in order to be eligible for being considered for promotion. When qualifications for appointment to a post in a particular cadre are prescribed, the same have to be satisfied before a person can be considered for appointment. Seniority in a particular cadre does not entitle a public servant for promotion to a higher post unless he fulfills the eligibility condition prescribed by the relevant rules. A person must be eligible for promotion having regard to the qualifications prescribed for the post before he can be considered for promotion. Seniority will be relevant only amongst persons eligible. Seniority cannot be substituted for eligibility nor it can override it in the matter of promotion to the next higher post. The rule in question which prescribes an uniform period of qualified service cannot be said to be arbitrary or unjust violative of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution. It has been rightly held by the Tribunal: "When certain length of service in a particular cadre can validly be prescribed and is so prescribed, unless a person possesses that qualification, he cannot be considered eligible for appointment. There is no law which lays down that a senior in service would automatically be eligible for promotion. Seniority by itself does not outweigh experience."” 22. Experience is a commonly required eligibility factor. Experience means knowledge or skill acquired out of practical acquaintance with facts or events. In Black’s Law Dictionary the word ‘experience’ is given the following meaning: "A state, extent, or duration of being engaged in a particular study or work; the real life as contrasted with the ideal or imaginary. A word implying skill, facility, or practical wisdom gained by personal knowledge, feeling, and action, and also the course or process by which one attains knowledge or wisdom.” 23. Absence of experience in substantive capacity is not a mere irregularity. Experience in substantive capacity is eligibility criterion for the purpose of promoting to a higher post and the same must strictly be complied with and no deviation is permissible (see R.S. Garg v. State of U.P., (2006) 6 SCC 430 ). Absence of experience in substantive capacity is not a mere irregularity. Experience in substantive capacity is eligibility criterion for the purpose of promoting to a higher post and the same must strictly be complied with and no deviation is permissible (see R.S. Garg v. State of U.P., (2006) 6 SCC 430 ). Similarly, employees on deputation or by way of transfer or holding posts in another cadre are not entitled to claim experience in the excadre posts as experience for the purpose of promotion (see Ram Saran v. State of Punjab, (1991) 2 SCC 253 ). 24. In Ram Saran (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that if the government employee was on deputation or holding a post in another cadre, the lien shall revive as soon as he ceased to hold the post in another cadre, and observed as under: - "21. If the government employee was on deputation or holding a post in another cadre, the lien shall revive as soon as he ceased to hold the post in another cadre. There is no revival of the lien during the period the employee continues to hold a post in another cadre. Therefore, during the period the suspension is operative, the employee cannot claim that he had been continuing in the post in the parent cadre and gaining experience. When the rule is clear and specific that for the purpose of promotion from the cadre of Superintendents, Assistant, Accountants, Senior Scale Stenographers to the post of Excise and Taxation Officers, the eligibility qualification is "experience of working ‘as such’ for five years”, the employee is not entitled to claim the experience in the excadre as experience of working in the ministerial cadre.” 25. Reverting to the facts of the case in the light of the principles of law relating to consideration of a Government servant for promotional post, it is quite vivid that the Rules of 2019 are applicable for promotion to the post of Principal by virtue of Rule 15 read with Schedule-IV, S.No.9, in the feeder post and in order to be eligible for promotion on the post of Principal from Lecturer / person holding feeder post, 5 years teaching experience on the post of Lecturer is sine qua non and unless a Lecturer has 5 years teaching experience in his parent Department (School Education Department), which is the minimum teaching experience for eligibility for the post of Principal, he is not eligible and cannot be considered for the post of Principal. Admittedly and undisputedly, the petitioners were absorbed in the Department of School Education with effect from 1-7-2018 pursuant to the policy decision taken by the State Government on 30-6-2018. Clause 4 of the policy dated 30-6-2018 categorically provides that for grant of all consequential benefits, computation of service shall be done from the date of absorption i.e. 1-7-2018. On the petitioners’ own showing, they have not completed 5 years teaching experience on the post of Lecturer as they have been absorbed only with effect from 1-7-2018 and they are legally obliged to have 5 years teaching experience as per Rule 15 read with Schedule-IV, S.No.9, of the Rules of 2019 for making them eligible to be considered for the promotional post of Principal. Their previous experience as Shiksha Karmi Grade-I in the respective Zila Panchayats cannot be considered for the promotional post of Principal, as they have born in the cadre of Lecturer (Local Body) with effect from 1-7-2018. 26. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.215/2017 (Harnarayan Yadav v. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission and another), decided on 7-1-2019, has clearly held that Shiksha Karmi is not the holder of civil post under the State and once they are not holding civil post under the State, their past services on the post of Shiksha Karmi cannot be considered as teaching experience in the Department of School Education. Otherwise, if that contention is accepted that their past service on the post of Shiksha Karmi, later-on renamed as Lecturer (Panchayat) is to be considered for computing teaching experience of 5 years, the necessary corollary would mean that the petitioners were entitled to be considered for promotion on the post of Principal immediately on the date of absorption to the post of Lecturer with effect from 1-7-2018, irrespective of the fact that they have never held the civil post under the State and the Rules of 2019 came into force with effect from 5-3-2019 and the employer of the petitioners now, the State Government, did not have any opportunity to observe the performance of the petitioners viz., ability, capability, calibre and suitability on the post of Lecturer (Panchayat) and thereby, the very purpose of prescribing five years teaching experience on the post of Lecturer which is the feeder cadre would be defeated and that would not be in consonance with the Rules of 2019. Thus, the employer/State Government would be completely denude of its authority and forced to consider and promote the petitioners without adjudging their ability, capability, calibre and suitability, as, as on today, the petitioners do not have five years experience on the post of Lecturer (LB). 27. The petitioners without any protest or demur accepted the policy dated 30-6-2018 and got themselves absorbed with effect from 1-7-2018 and thereafter, the Rules of 2019 came into force on 5-3-2019 and they are being governed by the Rules of 2019 without questioning the Rules of 2019. As on today, as per S.No.9 of Schedule-IV enacted under Rules 14 and 15 of the Rules of 2019, in order to get promotion on the post of Principal, minimum five years teaching experience on the post of Lecturer is sine qua non, which the petitioners have admittedly not completed as on this date, as they have become Lecturers only with effect from 1-7-2018 and as such, they cannot be considered for promotion on the post of Principal. {See Harnam Singh’s case (supra) and Indu Shekhar Singh (supra).} 28. {See Harnam Singh’s case (supra) and Indu Shekhar Singh (supra).} 28. In view of the aforesaid finding, the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in A.P. State Electricity Board (supra), V.M. Joseph’s case (supra), Renu Mullick (Smt.) (supra), Dwijen Chandra Sakrar (supra), Vinod Kumar Sharma (supra) and V.N. Bhat’s case (supra) are clearly inapplicable and/or distinguishable on the facts of the present case. 29. The next submission of Mr. Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(S)Nos.4341/2020 & 1472/2021, is based on Rule 12(2)(c) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1961 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1961’) and he relied upon the decisions of the M.P. High Court in Hemchandra Pandey (Dr.) (supra) and Chhogalal (supra) and the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and another v. Deepak Sood and others, Civil Appeal No.4446/2008, decided on 15-7-2008. Rule 12(2)(c) of the Rules of 1961 states as under: - "12. Seniority.—The seniority of the members of a service or a distinct branch or group of posts of that service shall be determined in accordance with the following principles, viz.,— (1) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (2) Seniority of Transferees.- (a) and (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) In the case of a person who is initially taken on deputation and absorbed later (i.e. where the relevant recruitment rules provide for “transfer on deputation/transfer”) his seniority in the grade in which he is absorbed will normally be counted from the date of absorption. If he has however been holding already (on the date or absorption) the same or equivalent grade on regular basis, in his parent department, such regular service in the grade shall also be taken into account in fixing his seniority, subject to the condition that he will be given seniority, from the date he has been holding the post on deputation or the date from which he has been appointed on a regular basis to the same or equivalent grade in his present department whichever is later. Explanation.—The fixation of seniority of a transferee in accordance with the above rule will not however affect any regular promotions to the next higher grade made prior to the date of such absorption. In other words it will be operative only in filling up of vacancies in higher grade taking place after such absorption.” 30. Explanation.—The fixation of seniority of a transferee in accordance with the above rule will not however affect any regular promotions to the next higher grade made prior to the date of such absorption. In other words it will be operative only in filling up of vacancies in higher grade taking place after such absorption.” 30. Part of Rule 12(2)(c) of the Rules of 1961 starting from “subject to the condition that he will be given seniority, from the date he has been holding the post on deputation or the date from which he has been appointed on a regular basis to the same or equivalent grade in his present department whichever is later” has been struck down by a Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Devsharan Dilliwar and others v. High Court of Chhattisgarh and others, W.P.No.3926/2005, decided on 19-10-2011. 31. A careful perusal of the aforesaid rule would show that Rule 12(2)(c) as amended with effect from 2nd April, 1998 relates to counting of past service of employee referred in equivalent post for determining seniority qua transfer on deputation to another department and absorption in that department. 32. The rule-making authority is competent to frame rules laying down eligibility condition for promotion to a higher post. Similarly, the prescribing of an eligibility condition for entitlement for consideration for promotion is within the competence of the rule-making authority. This eligibility condition has to be fulfilled by the person seeking promotion in higher post in order to be eligible for being considered for promotion. When qualifications for appointment to a post in a particular cadre are prescribed, the same have to be satisfied before a person can be considered for appointment. Seniority in a particular cadre does not entitle a public servant for promotion to a higher post unless he fulfills the eligibility condition prescribed by the relevant rules. A person must be eligible for promotion having regard to the qualifications prescribed for the post before he can be considered for promotion. Seniority will be relevant only amongst persons eligible. Seniority cannot be substituted for eligibility nor it can override it in the matter of promotion to the next higher post. {See R. Prabha Devi (supra).} 33. A person must be eligible for promotion having regard to the qualifications prescribed for the post before he can be considered for promotion. Seniority will be relevant only amongst persons eligible. Seniority cannot be substituted for eligibility nor it can override it in the matter of promotion to the next higher post. {See R. Prabha Devi (supra).} 33. Reverting to the facts of the case in the light of the aforesaid legal position, the argument based on Rule 12(2)(c) of the Rules of 1961 is of no advantage to the learned counsel for the petitioners as it relates to seniority of a transferee as by virtue Rule 12(2)(c) relevant seniority of persons appointed by transfer from one department to another department of the State Government shall be determined in accordance with the order of their selection for transfer and Rule 12(2)(c) deals with one of the contingencies i.e. transfer on deputation to another department and absorption in that department. As such, seniority is not an issue in this batch of writ petitions, therefore, the argument based on Rule 12(2)(c) is not relevant as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in R. Prabha Devi (supra) wherein it was held that a person must be eligible for promotion having regard to the qualifications prescribed for the post before he can be considered for promotion, seniority will be relevant only amongst persons eligible and seniority cannot be substituted for eligibility. It has already been held that the petitioners are ineligible as per S.No.9 of Schedule-IV enacted under Rules 14 and 15 of the Rules of 2019 according to which minimum five years teaching experience on the post of Lecturer (LB) is quite essential being the feeder post for claiming promotion on the post Principal. Admittedly, the petitioners did not have the said eligibility qualification in terms of five years experience on the post of Lecturer (LB), they are not entitled to be considered for promotion and Rule 12(2)(c) of the Rules of 1961 would not confer any benefit to the petitioners. No other argument has been pressed into service. 34. Admittedly, the petitioners did not have the said eligibility qualification in terms of five years experience on the post of Lecturer (LB), they are not entitled to be considered for promotion and Rule 12(2)(c) of the Rules of 1961 would not confer any benefit to the petitioners. No other argument has been pressed into service. 34. In that view of the matter, the decisions of the M.P. High Court in Hemchandra Pandey (Dr.) (supra), Chhogalal (supra), K.M. Mishra’s case (supra) and that of the Supreme Court in Deepak Sood’s case (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, are also clearly distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. 35. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid discussion, this batch of writ petitions is devoid of merit. The writ petitions deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. The petitioners in W.P.(S) No.1472/2021 are saddled with cost of Rs. 20,000/- for unnecessarily delaying the recruitment process.